Cortes
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2011
- Messages
- 102
Reading an article on Tom Woods' site, I came across this one comment:
"More than one has suggested nuclear security can be handled at with some of the new technologies at OUR ports. That is like checking baggage after the flight has arrived at its destination. We have spent a decade and a lot of money, well spent in my mind, working with foreign governments to allow us to install, and man such technologies in foreign ports.
If and when Iran gets the bomb it will not be launched by missile, it will be provided to terrorists for stealth delivery to our shores. When I hear an acknowledged expert on homeland security define how he backs Ron Paul then I will pay attention."
This is not some anonymous troll comment; I am giving this commenter the benefit of the doubt. Replies to the comment were ok, but I was dismayed that they didn't really get to the crux of it and address his question (I am planning on it, but I would first like to see the response here). A reply to the comment suggested Scheuer et al. Of course, these sources weren't 'reliable' enough (ie ignored), so that seems to be a little dishonesty going on there for our original commenter.
But I am curious to see how supporters here would answer his concern, since it is clear to me that border security is HUGE on RP's platform.
"More than one has suggested nuclear security can be handled at with some of the new technologies at OUR ports. That is like checking baggage after the flight has arrived at its destination. We have spent a decade and a lot of money, well spent in my mind, working with foreign governments to allow us to install, and man such technologies in foreign ports.
If and when Iran gets the bomb it will not be launched by missile, it will be provided to terrorists for stealth delivery to our shores. When I hear an acknowledged expert on homeland security define how he backs Ron Paul then I will pay attention."
This is not some anonymous troll comment; I am giving this commenter the benefit of the doubt. Replies to the comment were ok, but I was dismayed that they didn't really get to the crux of it and address his question (I am planning on it, but I would first like to see the response here). A reply to the comment suggested Scheuer et al. Of course, these sources weren't 'reliable' enough (ie ignored), so that seems to be a little dishonesty going on there for our original commenter.
But I am curious to see how supporters here would answer his concern, since it is clear to me that border security is HUGE on RP's platform.